Re: XFree86's Future and thoughts and suggestions

> invoked the Linux kernel model as justification for direct commit
> access.  I take it from your answer that it isn't possible for me
> (or most others) to get this same direct commit access in the case
> of the Linux kernel.

Correct. There are subtrees people use to manage crazier work before
merging. So right now the main trees we have are

	2.4		(stable)
	2.4-ac		(stable + pending stuff for testing)
	2.5		(devel)
	2.5-mm		(devel with all the crazy mm work)
	2.5-osdl	(devel + scaling stuff)

So the X equivalent I guess would be

	2.4 = 4.3
	2.4-ac ~= Vendor 4.3 shipments
	2.5 = 4.3.99
	2.5-* = Keith's proposed tree

> The response was slow, but your submissions were not lost.  Aside
> from you, responses I've gotten from Linux maintainers has either
> been slow or non-existent.  Hey, they're busy people, but so are we.

Quite a few were lost. That problem in the past is why it took me so long
to bother to fix the Cyrix driver.

> >that we don't have enough CVS committers and maybe I should send XFree86 some
> >money (not btw 'give us money or we apply your patch' - I definitely don't mean
> >to imply that)
> 
> I think the response was more like "it's in the queue, and we'll get to it
> when we have the time".

Erm no.  Thats a reply I've had too though.

Alan